linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] nfsd changes for 4.20

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgeJzBWjCafB3nKP0QMJCyh3rAjN+s6Z+T+5hfAT81YMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:06:58 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     bfields@...ldses.org
Cc:     linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        jlayton@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] nfsd changes for 4.20

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:55 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Pulled,

Oh, I take that back. Semantic conflict with locking name change
(recv_lock -> queue_lock) and new code in

   net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_backchannel.c

exposed by my build test.

And looking around, it was reported in linux-next, but you didn't
mention it, which kind of makes the whole reporting pointless.

Guys, what is the point of linux-next if you then don't *react* to it?
The correct reaction is to say during the merge window that "hey,
linux-next showed this issue", just so that I know about it and it
doesn't take me by surprise.

Yes, my normal build tests caught it, and I've fixed up my merge, but
this isn't how things are supposed to work.

                      Linus